Welcome! Sign in to access your account. New user?

A Philosopher or a Novelist

Which would you rather be, a great philosopher, or a great novelist ... and why?
Which would you rather be ... a great philosopher or a great novelist.
Pick which one seems true.
The Philosopher is better than the novelist because the philosopher deals with hard issues and discovering the truth while the novelist usually just deals with personality, scenes, and some psychological issues.
OR the novelist is better because he deals with beauty, art, creation of real human interaction, an sensitive nature, and the ability to recreate reality, while the philosopher is merely a loner who wants to change society instead of being accepted by it.
Pick which one seems to be more true...
The philosopher is better because he exemplifies more intelligence and is engaged in a hard debate with the greatest minds in history, while the novelist is just making up or telling stories.
The novelist is better because he SHOWS his philosophy as a portrait of reality, so even though he is not arguing, his novels are essentially soft versions of philosophy that come across more friendly, while the philosopher does not try to entertain or engage the reader but just tries to force his theories straight-forward.
Pick which one seems to be more true...
The philosopher is better because he COULD write novels if he wanted but has decided to grapple with the hardest issues, whereas the novelist may not be able to be a philosopher because he may not have the knowledge or logical ability to be a philosopher.
The novelist is better because he is more influential through wide readership than the philosopher who is often not widely read, so that by being more friendly and accessible the novelist is over-all more effective and influential to society. The philosopher may be right or insightful but few read his insight. Many read the novelist.
Pick which one seems to be more true ...
The philosopher is better because he is often able to influence and change the minds and habits of politicians in his own time and in the following generations, but the novelist is rarely able to influence the politicians of his day.
The novelist does more good by recording and creating a concensus of culture(meaning an agreed upon accurate portrayal of life at a certain time) than the philosopher who may only change things for the worse if his ideas and perceptions are wrong, meaning ultimately that the novelist can only provide some even if small amount of good, but the philosopher can actually do real harm
Pick which one seems to be more true ...
The philosopher is worse because some philosophy is completely unpractical and merely intellectual gaming that really doesn't amount to anything. At least, the novelist on some level is relevant, entertaining, or amusing, rarely if ever a complete waste of time.
The novelist is worse because SO MANY can be novelists and SO MANY have but very few have earned a real place in philosophy. It is very hard to be a philosopher, while it is rather easy to be a novelist.
Male or female
Under 20
20 to 29
30 to 39
Over 40
This poll was created on 2010-10-26 08:34:12 by pittsburgh overnight